Karnataka High Court
Bangal Lamps Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.17159 OF 2022 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
BENGAL LAMPS LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.137, PRINCE GOLAM HUSSAIN SHAH ROAD
KOLKATA - 700 032
AND LOCAL OFFICE AT NO.130/2,
ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042.
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SRI. SANDEEP M.G. S/O. M.V. GURURAJA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ANANDARAMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.R. NITHYANANDA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
2
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS RELATING TO ENDORSEMENT NO.
BDA/NAYOSA/DLP-16/1186/2022-23 DATED 18.08.2022
(ANNEXURE-A) FROM THE R-2 HEREIN AND QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT NO.BDA/NAYOSA/DLP-16/1186/2022-23 DATED
18.08.2022 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, R-2 HEREIN AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
a. Call for records relating to Endorsement No.BDA/NAYOSA/DLP-16/1186/2022-23 dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure - A) from the respondent No.2 herein;
b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the Endorsement No.BDA/ NAYOSA/DLP-16/1186/2022-23 dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure - A) issued by the Bangalore Development Authority, respondent No.2 herein, in the interest of justice;
c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No.2 to consider and allow the application submitted on 30.07.2022 (Annexure H) for sanction of plan and grant sanction of plan as sought by the petitioner in Annexure H, in the interest of justice and equity. d. Grant costs of the proceedings.
3e. Grant such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA for the 1st respondent - State and learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent - BDA and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition schedule property was converted for non-agricultural industrial purposes vide Official Memorandum dated 10/14.12.1965 issued in favour of the petitioner's vendor, T.S.Sivaswamy, in whose favour an Alienation Certificate dated 14.02.1966 was also issued by the State Government. Subsequently, vide Sale Deeds dated 27.09.1968 and 17.01.1969, the aforesaid T.S.Sivaswamy sold the petition schedule property in favour of the petitioner who has been using the property for industrial purposes thereafter and the conversion / alienation granted in favour of its vendor would enure to the 4 benefit of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when the petitioner submitted an application dated 30.07.2022 before the respondent No.2 - BDA seeking sanction of plan for developing the petition schedule property for commercial use, the BDA has proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement dated 18.08.2022 keeping the application in abeyance while informing the petitioner that the same would be considered only after the petitioner obtains change of land use in respect of a portion of the property shown as agricultural zone in RMP 2015 and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that apart from the fact that the impugned Communication / endorsement at Annexure - A dated 18.08.2022 is unreasoned and non-speaking without any application of mind, the reasons assigned therein are contrary to facts and law and violative of principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that since the entire petition schedule property had already been 5 converted / alienated for non-agricultural industrial purposes in 1965 - 66 in accordance with law, neither the RMP 2015 nor Section 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short, KTCP Act) were applicable to the petition schedule property in addition to the fact that the conversion / alienation / permission had been saved under RMP 2015 itself. It is also submitted that even according to the respondents, the major portion of the petition schedule property excluding 5 acres 25.17 guntas fell within commercial zone and not agricultural zone and since even the said extent fell within the mutation corridor as contemplated in Regulation 4.5 of the Zoning of Land Use and Regulations under RMP 2015 w.e.f. 22.06.2007 coupled with Regulations 1.1 and 3.16, respondents were clearly not justified in directing the petitioner to seek change of land use under Section 14-A of the KTCP Act and the impugned Communication / Endorsement deserves to be quashed since the same is depriving the petitioner of his right to put the petition schedule property to use and develop the same thereby resulting in irreparable injury and hardship to the petitioner.
6
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and referring to the material on record submits that there is no merit in the petition and the respondent No.2 was fully justified in issuing the impugned Communication / Endorsement which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition which is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. A perusal of the impugned order will clearly indicate that the sole ground on which the respondent No.2
- BDA has directed the application dated 30.07.2022 submitted by the petitioner to be kept in abeyance is based on the premise that the petitioner requires to obtain permission for change of land use under Section 14-A of the KTCP Act. Except the said reason, no other reason has been assigned by the BDA in the impugned endorsement which does not take into account or consider the other aforesaid contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, who 7 was not heard in the matter and as such, the impugned Communication / Endorsement is an unreasoned, cryptic, laconic and non-speaking order, which has been passed without any application of mind nor providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and does not consider its contentions thereby being violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed and the matter remitted back to the respondent No.2 - BDA for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner and its application dated 30.07.2022 in accordance with law.
8. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned Communication /
Endorsement at Annexure-A dated 18.08.2022
issued by the respondent No.2 - BDA is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 - BDA for reconsideration afresh the claim of the petitioner and its application at 8 Annexure-H dated 30.07.2022 bearing in mind the various contentions, pleadings and documents put-
forth and produced by the petitioner and also the observations made in this order and in accordance with law as well as provisions of the BDA Act, Town and Country Planning Act, Zoning Regulations, etc., as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of eight weeks from today.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., before the respondent No.2 - BDA, who shall consider the same and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl./SV